1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the C Apartment 702 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant from the Defendant, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, to purchase the purchase price of KRW 240 million (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 17 million on the day of the contract as the down payment, and KRW 24 million on April 20, 2015.

C. According to the instant sales contract, the payment date of the intermediate payment of KRW 126 million on May 22, 2015, and the payment date of the remainder KRW 90 million on June 22, 2015, and the remainder is stipulated as a special agreement stipulating that if the lease contract is concluded before and after June 22, 2015, it shall be paid on the lease deposit date. The Plaintiff demanded the return of the down payment to the Defendant with the same effect as the instant apartment before the payment date of the intermediate payment was made. Ultimately, on May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff sent mobile phone text messages stating that the Defendant did not intend to pay the intermediate payment to the Defendant.

On May 26, 2015, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail to the Defendant that the instant sales contract will be rescinded on the grounds that the intermediate payment obligation was not fulfilled.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4, 7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the contract was revoked due to the Defendant’s deception was filed, and the Plaintiff did not enter into the sales contract if he knew of the fact that the apartment building was in progress due to the Defendant’s unauthorized expansion of construction works. Although the Defendant was liable to notify the Plaintiff of such significant defects, the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of such fact. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s instant sales contract was revoked on the grounds of deception by Defendant’s omission by delivery of the instant complaint.

Therefore, it is necessary.